A Private Piggybank?

PETALING JAYA: Malaysian Defence regular commenter, FareedS, in the post “Happy New Year 2013…” had this to say “The bottom line, as I see it, is that defence expenditures must rise (as measured as a percentage of GDP) from their current level of roughly 2% to at least 3% in order to fund a fighting force capable of meeting Malaysia’s defence requirements. Of course, it will be up to the politicians to make the case for that level of increase in spending; And it is highly unlikely that they will do so. It will probably take a major incident and crushing loss before anyone will advocate a strong defence.

I believe that he was responding to the ever increasing budget of our neighbours. In response FNH stated “Even then, Vietnam’s political leadership knew the burden of military cost, and decided for political engagement, although deeper issues remain, they are less of an existentialist threat than economic implosion. Malaysia’s foreign policy for national interest is also convinced of this point, politics, is a better bullet to bite, than a bullet to get hit.

Even though I agreed with FNH, I share also FareedS concerns about our anemic defence budget, even though I admit that we are not in the “Mongols in the street scenario”. That said as capabilities take time to master it is important to note the less money we spend today on training and equipping our soldiers meant that in the future we may be driving on fumes!

I am all for an increase in the defence budget – not least for the chance to write about our next procurement plans – but the reality is that most Malaysians feel that the defence and national security sector is a private piggybank to a select few. It is not really about defending or protecting Malaysia, as I liked to say it is really for the next Ferrari, a property in London or even the next MP seat!

Why I am saying this? How else could you explain headlines like this : ”

So you see its not simply about raising the defence budget but its also making sure every sen is accounted for. We all realise that the Armed Forces is underfunded for its operational duties but the fact of the matter is simply raising the budget will not do anything. Yes we will have some more planes and ships to play around with but to what end?

25 Responses to "A Private Piggybank?"

Tucano is very capable craft for coin role, indonesia air force buy it for Bronco replacement, equipped with terrain radar and guided bomb , so its formidable foe for ground force, include MBt and artilery unit

Reply
I know that but it is unreasonable to expect TUDM to procure Tucanos as they have a large number of Pilatus PC-7 Mk I and IIs

I get your point about the Hawks and I absolutely agree but I firmly believe that the Hawks – especially given the limited number of aircraft we own – have a vital role to play. We can’t retire the Hawks to create cost savings when this will result in a capability gap that will probably never be filled. The Hawk 200 indeed traces its origins back to the original Hawk which was indeed a trainer but this on no way detracts the fact the the Hawk 200 was designed from the onset for the light combat role and has attracted its share of customers. Apart from the Frogfoot and A-10, I can’t think of that many fighters still operational that were designed from the onset purely as attack aircraft. A problem going for the Hawk is that many people [in other forums/blogs] tend to make direct comparisons between the Hawk 200 and ”heavier” fighters, ignoring or forgetting the fact that the Hawk 200 is a lightweight short range platform intended for the point interceptor role and for light attack and it was never intended to go head on against more agile higher performing fighters [I had an interesting discussion about this back in 1998 with the USMC pilots who were training our Hornet crews].

As for the MBB-339CMs, one factor going for it was that it’s cheaper than the Hawk. Back in the 1980’s we ditched the Alpha Jet and Hawk not only because Aermacchi offered to divert aircraft made for the Italian Air Force but also because the MBB-339A was considerably cheaper than the Hawk and Alpha Jet. Of the Hawk 100 and MBB-339, the question you and I would like answered is which is more suitable as a trainer, this nfortunately can only be answered by the RMAF :]. In an ideal world out LIFTs would have the same cockpit as our MRCAs, like what the RAAF did with its Hawks. The MBB-339CM has underwing wing and centreline hardpoints so I’m assuming that the 30mm gun pods and light bombs bought for the ‘As’ have been retained. Whether or not the RMAF intends for its CMs to perform the light attack role off course remains to be seen.

I have no idea as to the flight performance of the PC-7 and how it compares to the Tucano but one reason why many have bought the Tucano is because of its cheaper price tag and because the Swiss – due to their laws – are very prickly about their potential customers. Also, due to customer demand, the Tucano has been cleared to carry a greater variety of ordnance than the PC-7 and 9.

The PC-7s, 9s and the new 21s, can be and have been armed, but from the information that I have seen, they are not as capable as the Super Tucanos. I know the MB-339AMs were armed, how about the CMs though?

As for the Hawks, I have never been a fan, mainly for the reason that the RMAF operates too many aircraft types, but also due to its performance (it was designed to be a trainer, not a light fighter/attack aircraft). There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the RMAF to operate the Hawks AND the MB-339s both. Considering that the MB-339s are newer, I say order a second batch and put the Hawks into a Reserve/Training squadron pending their retirement when no longer of any use.

Reply
The armed version of the Super Tucano is derived directly from the ALX the single seater variant of the Brazilian Air Force

The RMAFs Light Attack Squadron [comprising PC-7 Mk1s] were intended to perform the FAC, light attack and coastal recce role and according to a Pilatus rep I asked many years ago the PC-7s were cleared to carry certain ordnance. The aircraft belonging to the LAS were armed with rockets [smoke and HE] and a single 200 pound bomb on the centreline. The former-LAS aircraft are presently operated by FT 3, still retain their sharksmouth motif and are painted in an olive drab scheme. Myanmmar’s PC-9s had previously been used to hit Karen and Kachin rebels in the past, to the dismay of the neutral Swiss. There are a few other PC-7 and 9 operators that have armed their aircraft, Slovenia is one of them. In the past, the MBB-339As were also armed with light bombs and a gun pod for the light attack role. Like other RMAF aircraft, live fire training was done at Song Song island, off Penang.

The Hawks have many years of service left, especially after the Adours were overhauled. In an ideal world, they would be upgraded with an AESA and a new cockpit – problem is no cash has been allocated and no AESA has been integrated to the Hawk by anyone.

PC-7s are not rated for the light attack role. It would cost a bomb to uparm/upgrade them. The Super Tucano can be equipped with internal guns, gun pods, air-to-air missiles, Mavericks, rockets, ‘dumb’ and ‘smart’ bombs/munitions. They can even be armed with Paveways. The Super Tucano has also already been integrated with a full-range of avionics for the attack role.

Light attack aircraft in TUDM are the Hawks so IMO we don’t need super tucano or pimped up MkII’s. If TUDM want to help TD in Borneo for CAS,maybe MkII is a best option (while keeping Hawks to serve S’nanjung).

The Armada article raises the question: Why doesn’t the TUDM look into acquiring a light attack prop aircraft such as the Super Tucano? They would be of more use than attack helicopters and much more cost-effective. Indonesia is acquiring a squadron and exploring joint production with Embraer.

Back in the late 1990’s, various doomsday prophets, including the GAO published stuff about how ‘bad’ the Super Hornet was going to be and see how that turned out. Same goes with the F-14 in the 1970’s [the Shah saved Grumman by providing a huge loan when Congress pulled its funding] and nearly every USN and USAF fighter that has entered service since the 1960’s – back in the day the F-4, F-16 and F-15 were all plagued by delays, costs overuns and technical issues.

The RAF has publicly announced that the per hour flying cost of the Typhoon is higher than the F3. The RMAF of course will never release operating figures for the MKM as the public will get a major jolt…

The Swiss have their feet fully on the ground and are living in the real world, unlike us. The Gripen is not a done deal however as there will be a public referendum. Today’s NST has a full page ad of the Rafale which reminds me of Dassault’s marketing campaign in Singapore but alas for them, the RSAF wanted a platform already integrated with an AESA and only the F-15 fitted the bill. Did Dassault actually open an office here like they said they would last year? After all the big talk about Rafale and Typhoon, we’ll be lucky to get the single engine Gripen [which isn’t a bad fighter at all especially if fitted with an EASA and a two way data link]. My personal opinion is that the Gripen’s chances of ever flying in RMAF colours was jeopardised the moment the RTAF ordered its Gripens but I could be wrong.

I’m very much hoping that the pen pushers at the Treasury will allocate funds for a 2nd batch of Cougars before Eurucopter ceases producing the Cougar in 20 years time!!!!!!!!

In Britain, a publicly-released comparison between the Super Tucano and the Eurofighter Typhoon F.2 delivers a powerful argument to cost-effectiveness: nearly 3 000-mile range for the Brazilian prop aircraft, against 1 840 for the superfighter; 6,5h endurance against 2h; $7,8 million unit cost against $105 million; and less than $800 per flying hour against a stunning $133,500 for the Eurofighter.
Echoing this in the United States, a respected February 2012 General Accounting Office report pointed out a gross underestimation of the flying hour in the F-35 programme. Re-assessed at over 30 000$, it is nearly 40 times that of the Super Tucano. Even the venerable F-15, supporting troops in Afghanistan, costs about $16 000$ per hour.

The latest AFM has a very interesting interview with the head of the Swiss Air Force. He mentions not being ”too bothered about the actual platform but about its sensors and weapons”. As I’ve maintained before, all the contenders can do the job, its how we develop capabilities at a systems level that will make the difference. Ultimately, Switzerland could not afford the Rafale and had to settle for the Gripen NG.

Unless something really drastic happens with regards to funding availability, there is no way we are going to be able to afford Rafale or the Typhoon, which reminds me of how bedazzled or mesmorised our esteemed Defence Minister was a couple of years ago with the Typhoon. He said the Typhoon was the most ”capable” and that other programmes would be affected if the Typhoon was selected. Lucky for him, no journalist asked him the ”million dollar question” – just what can’t the cheaper Super Hornet or Gripen do that the much more expensive Typhoon can??

Reply
If the Swiss can’t afford the Rafale (and Typhoon) how can we?.
As for the Defence Minister crush for Typhoon, he was thinking mostly of himself!

In the purchase of new military aircraft, overall life cycle costs are often overshadowed by the more immediate price per unit, as customers and governments focus on the tangible dollars going out the door now. But such a myopic focus has a way of haunting governments later. The trainer deal is the latest example.

Last July the Israeli Defense Ministry reached an agreement on a multiyear maintenance and support framework supporting the Israeli air force ’s new trainers. Israel’s two largest defense contractors, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Elbit Systems, established a joint venture called TOR Advanced Training to support the project throughout the period.

Early this month Elbit Systems awarded Finmeccanica ’s Alenia Aermacchi $140 million for its part of the aircraft service and support contract (Aerospace DAILY, Jan 8). Over the lifetime, this support deal is worth up to $603 million.

But when Israel placed its initial order for 30 units of M-346s from Aermacchi last July, the procurement cost reported was $850 million, of which $600 million was directly attributed to Aermacchi. That $600 million element leads to a so-called flyaway cost of $20 million per unit — excluding items like engines, which are bought directly from U.S. manufacturer Honeywell.

Last week Honeywell signed the contract for supplying the 60 F124-200 engines, plus spare engines , spare parts and lifetime support , in a deal worth $735 million.

Adding up the lifetime costs of these deals , the contracts so far could raise the program’s total cost to $2.2 billion over the next 20 years, or at least three times the “flyaway” cost per single “non-shooting” jet trainer.

Reply
I was told the flyaway cost of any one of the MRCA will only be 40 per cent and the rest will be its lifetime cost. Based on the above it sounds right.

Indon navy,customs and maritime boats have been entering our waters to ”detain” our boats for decades [even before Merdeka] and is nothing new. Even at the height of the Confrontation when a mini war was being fought, RMN vessels caught several Indon boats [mostly non ALRI] in our waters – and these boats where not in our water for ”activities” related to the Confrontation.

I knew someone who worked on an Indon Customs boat in the 1980’s and who was based at Dumai. He told me all about their ”activities”, aimed at supplementing their income. At times they would enter our waters to tax Indons boats which were fishing illegally in our waters!!!! The Israeli’s have a term for this, it’s called ”chutzpah”. Unconnected, but in the past RMN boats would stop alongside TNI-AU boats along the maritime boundary and trade Maggi Mee and tinned food for keretek and during the Confrontation – despite the ”mini war”, cross border trade in East Malaysian waters continued unabated, with small craff from entering Tawau daily for barter.

Reply
No they have not, it was supposed to be done by the 112th Congress but they failed to pass the measure and now the 113th Congress must do it. The Perrys for the Thais, Mexico and Turkey were sent to Congress last June, so decision was taken in 2011. If Malaysia is also slated to receive the Perrys, the request must come in by June, 2013.
Here is the link to the story.

Last year both governments signed an agreement agreeing that ships in ‘disputed’ waters will be ‘chased’ away and not detained along the various maritime boundaries we share and 2 weeks ago Najib and their President spoke about the need to address the ‘disputes’. Whether this will lead to anything remains to be seen. After losing Sipadan/Ligatan and previous incidents at Ambalat, the Indonesian President has to tread very carefully less he comes under flak at home from various quarters.

Reply
Just look at the current impasse on the maid issue to see whether or not its worth the effort.

An agreement should be sought with Indonesia calling for a limitation of arms in and around the Ambalat region. In addition there should be an exchange of liaison officers and observers to assist in communication between the parties. The last thing either country needs is an incident. This could also be a first step in a process of ultimately resolving the issue peacefully.
Reply
Such treaties will need to be ratified with the Indonesian parliament which has a history of not being kind to such bilateral agreements as shown by the Indonesian and Singapore treaty on military training.

The Korps Marinir operates the PT-76 in Kalimantan. In addition to reviving an old command to oversee operations in East Kalimantan the TNI has constructed an airbase at Tarakan [to house the UAVs and Tucanos] and has fighters based in Sulawesi – only a short flying time away. There was a previous unconfirmed report that Malaysian ASTROS batteries have been moved to East Malaysia.

The questions we can speculate on is whether the decision to base the TNI-AUs Su-30s and Su-27s in Sulawesi was driven by the need to ”defend” Ambalat and whether Ambalat played any part in Teluk Sepanggar being chosen to house the RMNs Scorpenes – or was Teluk Sepanggar chosen largely because of its proximity to the South China Sea and the Spratlys?

Wonder if MAF will react to this. In 2011, Indonesia created a second army regional command on Kalimantan. In early 2012, Malaysian army chief Zulkifli Zainal Abdidin said that MAF is probing into creating a second army division in East Malaysia. Now Indonesia is boosting armour units on Kalimantan, so its Malaysia’s turn again I guess.

To borrow a line from a US Senator during the recent ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations: “[P]eople in Congress, those who I’ve met up here, they don’t deserve to manage any more money. They’re doing a bad job managing the money they have. We should not send them any more money. They’re not to be trusted with money.”

The same holds true for all parts of government in Malaysia today. Bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft and embezzlement are endemic.

What I am implying by calling for an increase in defence expenditures is NOT to blindly allocate more funds for the defence ministry. A lot of things need to happen to improve governance in Malaysia before raising the defence budget, or any budget for that matter, would make sense and effectively address current deficiencies in the armed forces.

That said, defence spending must eventually rise in order to counter, as Marhalim points out, “the ever increasing budgets of our neighbors”, and the increasing intransigence of certain countries (notably China). Politics as a tool of foreign policy is ideal, but not without risk. Every prudent nation ought to be prepared for, as it is called by von Clausewitz, the continuation of politics by other means (i.e. war). To not be as prepared as one can be, is simply foolhardy.

By “a major incident and crushing loss”, it is not to far fetched to imagine the Chinese sinking a TLDM ship during a quickly escalating and out-of-control encounter in the South China Sea. There are innumberable other scenarios that don’t end well on our side. What would the government response be then – “Sorry, we have neglected national defence and now we are paying the price for being incapable of defending our own ships in our own waters”?!

No one expects a midsized country, such as Malaysia is, to be all-powerful, but it is clearly embarrassing that nations with much less are able to field superior defence capabilities. To borrow another line from US politics, if the government is incapable of providing for the defence of the nation – “throw the bums out”!

Direct procurement without the middlemen can be also just as wasteful as anything else. Do we already have ‘integrity’ in the armed forces? Doubt it. Both the politicians and the armed forces are suspect. So, which one is easier (in theory) to begin the reformation process?

Reply
You left out the civil servants!
Yes, any big ticket item procurement carries huge risks both politically and financially. To me as long there is a check and balance mechanism in place and the elimination (even reduction, one cannot please everybody) of the public perception that arms purchases are wasteful and meant to enrich some parties, it is a good start.

Wow, Mr Marhalim must be angry ( or despondent ) if what is essentially a non-military issue, a land purchase fiasco, is highlighted here. Though for me the comedic value of the whole saga is just priceless.

Reply
It is a military issue as the Defence Ministry gave the go-ahead. Its not just a land purchase fiasco, Awan Megah was given the land and others in return to build two Army camps, one (Kem Muara Tuang Sarawak and the other in Selangor (Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia). There were various defects in the camp which were delivered late while the university has yet to be started.

Its all about buying what the armed forces really need n want n at yhe right price. Not forcing onto thecarmed forces what they have no choice but to accept. The tender process shouldvalso be open n transparent yo ensure we get galue for what we pay for